Firefox is out of the iOS game until Apple changes its ways

Why release another browser for iOS when they all have to use WebKit?

We iOS users have it OK when it comes to alternate browsers. Although we still can't set anything but mobile Safari as the default, those of us who prefer another browser have a few options available, including Opera, Chrome, and iCab. But if you've been holding your breath for a (new) iOS version of Firefox, you can exhale: Mozilla doesn't plan to release a new version until Apple changes its ways when it comes to controlling user choice.

A full-on version of Firefox has never existed for iOS, although there were many hints that the organization might be working on one. Mozilla used to have an app called Firefox Home for iOS, but it wasn't meant to act as a browser as it focused mainly on bookmark and tab syncing. Ultimately, the organization pulled the app in September in order to "focus our resources on other projects."

Mozilla did demo an experimental browser for iOS called "Junior" in the middle of 2012, but the company was unable to use its own Gecko HTML rendering engine due to iOS restrictions. Instead, like other browsers available on iOS, it was forced to stick with WebKit. As Ryan Paul wrote last June, "the only thing that will differentiate it from other iPad browsers will be the user interface and the Mozilla service integration."

That's apparently the main reason why Mozilla has given up on any plans to work on a version of Firefox for iOS. Mozilla VP of Product Jay Sullivan made his comments at SXSW over the weekend, as reported by CNET. Sullivan commented that Mozilla is not developing a browser for iOS anymore, and it has no plans to do so in the future—at least not until Apple allows Mozilla to use its own rendering engine and opens up the platform more.

So all of the browsers are wrappers over the came core? I downloaded one called Mercury due to the inability to switch tabs when listening to web-based media in Safari. That way when I play something I can still have a web browser to use. But I was wondering if it was just an interface difference because they acted very simliar.

So all of the browsers are wrappers over the came core? I downloaded one called Mercury due to the inability to switch tabs when listening to web-based media in Safari. That way when I play something I can still have a web browser to use. But I was wondering if it was just an interface difference because they acted very simliar.

It's worse then that. 3rd party browsers don't get the same API access that Safari does, making performance usually pretty awful compared to the built in browser. But to answer your question, yes all 3rd party browsers are basically just skins over the same rendering engine.

If it weren't for the AdBlock Add-On not available for Chrome Mobile I probably wouldn't use Firefox on Android. I've started using Chromium more often on Mac, but it doesn't feature its own version of NoScript.

So, I'm old enough that I remember reading about this same conversation, but instead of Mozilla being unhappy with Apple, they were unhappy with Microsoft. Not being a legal guru by any stretch, can someone explain why the entire weight of the US Government hasn't come down on Apple like it did Bill Gates and crew? Are we headed in that direction or is Apple in the clear to continue operating with their closed ecosystem?

Perhaps Mozilla could complain to the EU again, and perhaps this time it might result in a browser ballot on a platform where it actually makes sense.

Based on the numbers of non-IE downloads during the time the ballot was in effect, compared to the cliff-like drop during the 14 month long "technical error," the ballot mandate for Windows was anything but illogical. If anything, MSFT's (deliberate) failure to comply with the order provided the very evidence needed to show that the ballot was actually working, and not just a more convenient tool for people to install their browser of choice than using IE to download it the first time on a new computer.

That said, it's unlikely any action would be taken on iOS, nor is there any need to; Android is the majority smart phone OS in the world, has been for a while now, and DOES allow users choice and control over what they buy. If any action were taken against Apple it would be for their strategy of hypocritical litigation rather than competing on the merits, but as long as Android manages to keep kicking their butt it's unlikely much would even be done about this (at least it's harder in the EU, since they recognize the unpatentability of software.)

ironnmetal wrote:

I don't understand why iOS and MS continue to prevent alternative browsers. Microsoft was essentially sued over this issue with their Windows OS.

I don't like Android phones, but there's no denying their appeal when it comes to user choice.

MSFT was sued for a lot more than simply lack of choice or bundling of software lol

I don't understand why iOS and MS continue to prevent alternative browsers. Microsoft was essentially sued over this issue with their Windows OS.

Windows had like 90 percent of the PC market, and is still by a large margin the dominant OS. Some core functions are basically Windows-only, most notably gaming. Much corporate software is (or at least was, I suppose a lot is browser-based now) Windows only.

The Smartphone market is much more competitive, so the restriction of a browser is less of a detriment to the consumer; it's easier to switch platforms, and a lower cost to entry (e.g. repurchasing apps; I could handily rebuy every app I own for less than the cost of just Office.)

Quote:

I don't like Android phones, but there's no denying their appeal when it comes to user choice.

So, I'm old enough that I remember reading about this same conversation, but instead of Mozilla being unhappy with Apple, they were unhappy with Microsoft. Not being a legal guru by any stretch, can someone explain why the entire weight of the US Government hasn't come down on Apple like it did Bill Gates and crew? Are we headed in that direction or is Apple in the clear to continue operating with their closed ecosystem?

Because the US no longer really enforces anti-trust law. It began when nearly every aspect of US v MSFT was thrown out after they purchased a settlement actively beneficial to them. Specifically, MSFT was the third single largest contributor to the Bush campaign fund, one of the first things Bush did after taking office was to appoint John Ashcroft to the DoJ, and the very first thing Ashcroft did was hand MSFT a settlement that outright legitimized some of their anticompetitive practices, and gave them a slap on the wrist (that wasn't even enforced) for the rest.

I don't understand why iOS and MS continue to prevent alternative browsers. Microsoft was essentially sued over this issue with their Windows OS.

Windows had like 90 percent of the PC market, and is still by a large margin the dominant OS. Some core functions are basically Windows-only, most notably gaming. Much corporate software is (or at least was, I suppose a lot is browser-based now) Windows only.

The Smartphone market is much more competitive, so the restriction of a browser is less of a detriment to the consumer; it's easier to switch platforms, and a lower cost to entry (e.g. repurchasing apps; I could handily rebuy every app I own for less than the cost of just Office.)

Quote:

I don't like Android phones, but there's no denying their appeal when it comes to user choice.

Which is why we like Android phones.

Even the web-based stuff is largely IE-only, thanks to how well-marketed Sharepoint is to the management that doesn't have to actually use it, let alone maintain it. It's truly horrifying, especially when there are so many CMSs out there, for free, that are so much more powerful and easier to work with.

So all of the browsers are wrappers over the came core? I downloaded one called Mercury due to the inability to switch tabs when listening to web-based media in Safari. That way when I play something I can still have a web browser to use. But I was wondering if it was just an interface difference because they acted very simliar.

They use the same rendering engine, but everything around that can be different, including the tab behaviour

Can't say I blame them. Having just finished my first iPhone app, I can say unequivocally that I hope it's my last, and that I'll make every effort to indefinitely put off the iOS version of any future apps.

So, I'm old enough that I remember reading about this same conversation, but instead of Mozilla being unhappy with Apple, they were unhappy with Microsoft. Not being a legal guru by any stretch, can someone explain why the entire weight of the US Government hasn't come down on Apple like it did Bill Gates and crew? Are we headed in that direction or is Apple in the clear to continue operating with their closed ecosystem?

Apple does not hold a monopoly on smartphones like Microsoft did on PCs. You have Android and even Windows Phone as competing platform with significant market share (well, at least Android). The problem is not closed ecosystems, it's closed ecosystems with >90% of the market.

So, I'm assuming that Mozilla will be tripping over itself to allow other companies to write browsers for its upcoming FirefoxOS...

I don't see why not. Well, maybe not "tripping over themselves," but I don't see them putting up roadblocks like MS did for years, and Apple still does on iDevices.

I don't see it being as simple as Androids, where the platform doesn't care which browser is the default, but I have no reason to expect that you'll be able to use whatever browser you want on FirefoxOS...

So, I'm assuming that Mozilla will be tripping over itself to allow other companies to write browsers for its upcoming FirefoxOS...

I don't see why not. Well, maybe not "tripping over themselves," but I don't see them putting up roadblocks like MS did for years, and Apple still does on iDevices.

From everything I know, normal apps on FirefoxOS run using the Gecko engine... meaning they're built on web technologies. A web browser in a web browser is a joke (and you could do the same on iOS, without a developers license!).

I'm not defending Apple's policy in any way, but one reason would be to allow the use syncing and other cloud features along with a consistent user interface. Some folks may geek-out which rendering engine is under the hood, but most users probably don't worry much about that kind of thing.

Wait... why do you say iOS users have it okay for alternate browsers? I understood on iOS users could only select reskins of the same Safari engine that is the default. There are no alternate browsers so how is that okay? Surely more genuine choice is a good thing? I'm not surprised Firefox pulled out.

That's unrestricted from a security/privacy point of view. Nothing in there says anything about allowing you to replace the Gecko engine (hell, why can't I replace the system-wide Gecko engine on FirefoxOS so all the apps could be powered by WebKit/Trident/the-now-defunct-engine-known-as-Presto/etc without modifying the OS's source code?).

In all honesty, I see no issue with Apple's decision (from a legal/moral point of view), nor any from Mozilla's position with FirefoxOS (which, from everything I've seen, is the same as Apple's, whether they want to admit it or not).

So, I'm old enough that I remember reading about this same conversation, but instead of Mozilla being unhappy with Apple, they were unhappy with Microsoft. Not being a legal guru by any stretch, can someone explain why the entire weight of the US Government hasn't come down on Apple like it did Bill Gates and crew? Are we headed in that direction or is Apple in the clear to continue operating with their closed ecosystem?

Because anti-trust law only comes into play when a company has a monopoly in a particular market. Microsoft's 90s PC OS share dwarfs Apple's current smartphone share.

That's unrestricted from a security/privacy point of view. Nothing in there says anything about allowing you to replace the Gecko engine (hell, why can't I replace the system-wide Gecko engine on FirefoxOS so all the apps could be powered by WebKit/Trident/the-now-defunct-engine-known-as-Presto/etc without modifying the OS's source code?).

In all honesty, I see no issue with Apple's decision (from a legal/moral point of view), nor any from Mozilla's position with FirefoxOS (which, from everything I've seen, is the same as Apple's, whether they want to admit it or not).

There is a considerable difference though. From what I understand of FirefoxOS, it's essentially an OS based on web-tech so running a browser within a browser is not particularly useful, since apps run on Gecko anyway. But the massive difference is that the code, all of it, is open-source and I recall a least one interview/article where a Firefox dev stated they had no problem with someone ripping out Gecko and replacing it with an engine of their choice. To fork or alter FirefoxOS, as with all properly licenced free software, is trivial.

Firefox have frankly earned the trust over the years that they will be as open as the technology enables them to be. Their browser was crucial for the health of the openweb during the IE years and is still crucial to prevent a webkit dominanted mono-culture. To compare them with Apple is laughable.

So, I'm old enough that I remember reading about this same conversation, but instead of Mozilla being unhappy with Apple, they were unhappy with Microsoft. Not being a legal guru by any stretch, can someone explain why the entire weight of the US Government hasn't come down on Apple like it did Bill Gates and crew? Are we headed in that direction or is Apple in the clear to continue operating with their closed ecosystem?

At the time that was enacted against Microsoft they had 95%+ of the worldwide consumer computing market. They were a dominant and arguably abusive monopoly.

Apple has about 30% of the smartphone market, and about 11% of the worldwide phone market. They have no where near monopoly marketshare, so the rules are different for them.

That's unrestricted from a security/privacy point of view. Nothing in there says anything about allowing you to replace the Gecko engine (hell, why can't I replace the system-wide Gecko engine on FirefoxOS so all the apps could be powered by WebKit/Trident/the-now-defunct-engine-known-as-Presto/etc without modifying the OS's source code?).

In all honesty, I see no issue with Apple's decision (from a legal/moral point of view), nor any from Mozilla's position with FirefoxOS (which, from everything I've seen, is the same as Apple's, whether they want to admit it or not).

There is a considerable difference though. From what I understand of FirefoxOS, it's essentially an OS based on web-tech so running a browser within a browser is not particularly useful, since apps run on Gecko anyway. But the massive difference is that the code, all of it, is open-source and I recall a least one interview/article where a Firefox dev stated they had no problem with someone ripping out Gecko and replacing it with an engine of their choice. To fork or alter FirefoxOS, as with all properly licenced free software, is trivial.

Firefox have frankly earned the trust over the years that they will be as open as the technology enables them to be. Their browser was crucial for the health of the openweb during the IE years and is still crucial to prevent a webkit dominanted mono-culture. To compare them with Apple is laughable.

So it's perfectly fine for Mozilla to offer less choice than Apple, because they copied Microsoft's defense in the 90s of trying to integrate the web browser into the core of the OS. If you swap the 'Apple' and 'Mozilla', you'd likely be arguing right now that integrating a browser into the core of the OS is bad, while at least iOS's choice allows some end user choice.

Wait... why do you say iOS users have it okay for alternate browsers? I understood on iOS users could only select reskins of the same Safari engine that is the default. There are no alternate browsers so how is that okay? Surely more genuine choice is a good thing? I'm not surprised Firefox pulled out.

There are many alternate browsers on iOS, but they all have to use the same rendering engine. If you make a browser for iOS that has features like downloading ability and desktop mode (like Dolphin, Chrome, etc) you're fine.

So, I'm old enough that I remember reading about this same conversation, but instead of Mozilla being unhappy with Apple, they were unhappy with Microsoft. Not being a legal guru by any stretch, can someone explain why the entire weight of the US Government hasn't come down on Apple like it did Bill Gates and crew? Are we headed in that direction or is Apple in the clear to continue operating with their closed ecosystem?

Microsoft had an existing monopoly (Windows). MS used said monopoly to unfairly push a new product, Internet Explorer, over competitors (namely Netscape Navigator).

Apple entered a market (phones) where it had no marketshare with a new product (iPhone). That product had a built-in browser (et al.). Therefore, there was no abuse of monopoly power to push the browser (no monopoly, no existing competition on the platform).